If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Just FYI (and I don't know where you're from), here in America you have the right to care at hospitals, regardless of if you can pay for it. Ultimately the tax payer would get the bill.

And as for the "rights"...well maybe that's just an American thing. Universally is highly debatable and I doubt humanity would ever be able to come to a consensus.

I thought that was the case when I was young. Learned that was not the case when I followed a friend to the hospital with a head injury. No tests for concussion no tests for fracture. He had been hospitalized before so they knew that he did not have resources. I suspect they would not have let him die on location. If you can stagger they will direct you to stagger out the door. Unless, of course, you have the right plastic card. A drivers license or state ID is not the right card.
Tax payers probably did get the bill for the time it took to kick him out. Certainly the cost of a useless ambulance ride that the police decided was necessary.

Originally Posted by Elldallan

inalienable right to treatment for any condition that could potentially be life threatening, which nearly any illness can be/will be if it goes untreated.

I broke a nail on my middle finger. It bled a little bit. I enthusiastically reported it to my manager and her manager and the manager of another department. It was a good day.

I did not get any treatment. I did not get to go to either the workmanscomp doctor or my doctor. Not even a nurse or medical technician. It went untreated. I have not died yet.

I thought that was the case when I was young. Learned that was not the case when I followed a friend to the hospital with a head injury. No tests for concussion no tests for fracture. He had been hospitalized before so they knew that he did not have resources. I suspect they would not have let him die on location. If you can stagger they will direct you to stagger out the door. Unless, of course, you have the right plastic card. A drivers license or state ID is not the right card.
Tax payers probably did get the bill for the time it took to kick him out. Certainly the cost of a useless ambulance ride that the police decided was necessary.

I broke a nail on my middle finger. It bled a little bit. I enthusiastically reported it to my manager and her manager and the manager of another department. It was a good day.

I did not get any treatment. I did not get to go to either the workmanscomp doctor or my doctor. Not even a nurse or medical technician. It went untreated. I have not died yet.

... If I choose to eat steak and bacon all my life, why should it be my neighbors responsibility to pay my healthcare costs? ...

Sounds like a fairly good principle in general. I'm glad to hear you support the ACA and it's change to penalize those that wanted to simply skip paying for insurance and let all the rest of us pay for their treatment.

What's that, you thought you were arguing against the ACA? How odd - the hospital can't turn you (the hypothetical you) away, and after they ruin your finances, now you want them to bill me, the taxpayer?! I say you don't have the right to gamble *my* money that *you* won't get sick.

Now, if you seriously want to contentiously object to having health insurance, I'm perfectly happy to let you sign a form that says you consent to be left dying on the steps of the hospital for "religious" reasons if you are unable to pay. It'll take a few years, but then all those idiots will be dead and we can stop having this discussion. Unfortunately, the rest of the country here is too soft against crass stupidity, and as such insists we treat you anyway.

I've known some people that couldn't afford health insurance till ACA kicked in. In one case, the inability to pay for health insurance lead to a (somewhat) life-threatening situation - because sometimes you heal, but the 1 year old you didn't feed for a week sure doesn't. It happens here, in the richest country, every day. To *millions*, if I'm not mistaken. (Not fact checked - plus definitions are fuzzy.)

If you (anyone, not op/quoted) think your lucky birth, lucky education, and good employment makes you "better", your worldview is hopeless and your self awareness almost non-existent. You are successful because you were born middle-class or affluent, and are white. It doesn't work at the bottom of the economic pile - and I know most of them work harder every week than I am ever likely to in my whole life.

ACA is a godsend to those stuck down there. "Mandate" my eye - many *jump* at the chance to get hold of insurance. Just as soon as it doesn't take away from getting to eat lunch. The uninsured numbers would be lower still if some republican states didn't refuse the federal money to expand medicare, intentionally letting people get ill and sometimes die for the sake of scoring "political points". If you ever wonder why there is such vitriol in US politics - the fact that one party is accessory to murder has something to do with it.

And now, I go listen to music to calm back down from a mix of rage and despair at the stupidity of the world.

it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

Sounds like a fairly good principle in general. I'm glad to hear you support the ACA and it's change to penalize those that wanted to simply skip paying for insurance and let all the rest of us pay for their treatment.

What's that, you thought you were arguing against the ACA? How odd - the hospital can't turn you (the hypothetical you) away, and after they ruin your finances, now you want them to bill me, the taxpayer?! I say you don't have the right to gamble *my* money that *you* won't get sick.

Now, if you seriously want to contentiously object to having health insurance, I'm perfectly happy to let you sign a form that says you consent to be left dying on the steps of the hospital for "religious" reasons if you are unable to pay. It'll take a few years, but then all those idiots will be dead and we can stop having this discussion. Unfortunately, the rest of the country here is too soft against crass stupidity, and as such insists we treat you anyway.

I've known some people that couldn't afford health insurance till ACA kicked in. In one case, the inability to pay for health insurance lead to a (somewhat) life-threatening situation - because sometimes you heal, but the 1 year old you didn't feed for a week sure doesn't. It happens here, in the richest country, every day. To *millions*, if I'm not mistaken. (Not fact checked - plus definitions are fuzzy.)

If you (anyone, not op/quoted) think your lucky birth, lucky education, and good employment makes you "better", your worldview is hopeless and your self awareness almost non-existent. You are successful because you were born middle-class or affluent, and are white. It doesn't work at the bottom of the economic pile - and I know most of them work harder every week than I am ever likely to in my whole life.

ACA is a godsend to those stuck down there. "Mandate" my eye - many *jump* at the chance to get hold of insurance. Just as soon as it doesn't take away from getting to eat lunch. The uninsured numbers would be lower still if some republican states didn't refuse the federal money to expand medicare, intentionally letting people get ill and sometimes die for the sake of scoring "political points". If you ever wonder why there is such vitriol in US politics - the fact that one party is accessory to murder has something to do with it.

And now, I go listen to music to calm back down from a mix of rage and despair at the stupidity of the world.

I broke a nail on my middle finger. It bled a little bit. I enthusiastically reported it to my manager and her manager and the manager of another department. It was a good day.

I did not get any treatment. I did not get to go to either the workmanscomp doctor or my doctor. Not even a nurse or medical technician. It went untreated. I have not died yet.

A broken nail is clearly not an illness, nor can it even reasonably be considered to be an injury. But for example something as simple as the measles can technically kill you if gone untreated, it's not common but it happens, and rubella if a woman contracts it during pregnancy can cause still birth or birth defects in the baby. Many things that are considered minor by modern society actually killed people regularly earlier in history, because of the lack of adequate healthcare.

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Did someone seriously compare forced Health Insurance to forced Car Insurance? That is comparing Apples and Oranges. The state does not mandate you to get collision/comprehensive insurance, you are required to get liability insurance in case you injure someone else. Health insurance is solely for your own benefit. Please name the states that mandate you to have collision/comprehensive and then your point is valid. (Do not confuse State mandated, verse lender mandated. If you finance a new car, or lease you will be required to get collision/comprehensive by the lender to secure their interest in the vehicle, similar to getting homeowners insurance when you have a mortgage)

The real problem with Healthcare costs is it became the ONE AND ONLY insurance that you want to use. Think of all the other insurance policies out there, Car, Life, Homeowners, Flood, etc. All of them only get used when something terrible happens. If Health Insurance were the same, and stopped covering things like routine visits, the flu, going to the dr for strep or any other non-major disease, and instead it was only used for MAJOR problems (IE you need to go to the hospital) the cost would go WAAAAY down. Another way to drop the cost of health insurance is the lawsuits in this country are disgusting, and its cheaper to settle than to go through with the lawsuit, even if the defense is going to win, but that gets into a whole different argument.

For all of you in favor of ACA, if the republicans maintain the house and senate and get a president in, are you ok with a law that mandates every individual own a firearm (Lets say over 18) or you pay a penalty on your tax return each year? If you fall into the poor category there will be subsidies to make the firearm cheaper for you.

I thought that was the case when I was young. Learned that was not the case when I followed a friend to the hospital with a head injury. No tests for concussion no tests for fracture. He had been hospitalized before so they knew that he did not have resources. I suspect they would not have let him die on location. If you can stagger they will direct you to stagger out the door. Unless, of course, you have the right plastic card. A drivers license or state ID is not the right card.
Tax payers probably did get the bill for the time it took to kick him out. Certainly the cost of a useless ambulance ride that the police decided was necessary.

I thought in countries like mine where healthcare is 'free,' one goes to the hospital in an emergency and gets treated. One does not expect to go to Accident & Emergancy only to hear 'go home' unless death is imminent.

This is actually untrue. Unpaid health care costs eventually become someone's else's problem and in the case of emergency room visits (not sure if that extends to anything else), the burden of payment already falls to the taxpayers.

The real problem with Healthcare costs is it became the ONE AND ONLY insurance that you want to use. Think of all the other insurance policies out there, Car, Life, Homeowners, Flood, etc. All of them only get used when something terrible happens. If Health Insurance were the same, and stopped covering things like routine visits, the flu, going to the dr for strep or any other non-major disease, and instead it was only used for MAJOR problems (IE you need to go to the hospital) the cost would go WAAAAY down.

The problem with this logic is that MAJOR problems are easily avoided by doing things like having routine visits, getting flu medication, ect. Having a questionable mole removed for $450 is much better for me and my pocketbook than getting chemotherapy for melanoma that costs me $20,000 by the end of things.

For all of you in favor of ACA, if the republicans maintain the house and senate and get a president in, are you ok with a law that mandates every individual own a firearm (Lets say over 18) or you pay a penalty on your tax return each year? If you fall into the poor category there will be subsidies to make the firearm cheaper for you.

No, I would not be ok with that for a few reasons.
1. Firearms can be dangerous. A quick google search says that according to the CDC about 500 people die from accidental firearm injuries a year. I'm not sure how much of that, or if just all of it is in-home accidents (no idea how they categorize that stuff), but either way it's a risk that I could otherwise avoid without said law and/or suffering a monetary penalty for.
2. I get absolutely no benefit from this law and must suffer a penalty for failing to follow it.
3. You are literally putting weapons into the hands of criminals.

None of the above apply to the ACA. Health insurance isn't a danger to anyone and if you didn't have it before you benefit from having it. Do I think the ACA could use some changes and make it better? Of course. Most do. I think that's the thing that escapes so many opponents of the bill.

Ahahahaha. The ACA is terrible. Forced health care that is overpriced (just like mandatory car insurance) and ineffective, bureaucratic overhead which is crushing it. Obama is either wrecking the country with his neoliberal friends, or (if you want to see him as optimistically as possible) making the ACA so awful that people will riot for single-player and accept a ****tier implementation.

The guy is a poverty pimp, pure and simple. Hillary will be more of the same. All of the Republicans want to start WW3 as soon as they get into office.

It's not health care alone that's wrecking the country, it's the entire set of coercive, pro-corporate policies. That isn't just a continuation of Bush Jr.'s slide towards autocracy, they are things he and his people choose to do that did not have to happen; but they will continue to happen as more people are pushed out of society, like I was a long time ago. The ACA is basically what Republicans wanted and what most Democrats in their heart wanted; the best criticisms of it have come from the left.

The forced coverage really sucks when people need to rely on it and realize they bought a piece of ****.

Of course, insurance does not guarantee delivery. I'm forced to lie to doctors if I want anything and will automatically be denied anything like an organ transplant, thanks to pro-eugenic policies directed against me. Whether that comes from the market or from a government bureaucrat, the end result to me and others like me is the same.

When society openly wants to kill you and brags about it nearly every day, you start to see things more realistically.

Believe me, you don't need to explain to me how **** health insurance companies are. My dad had a liver transplant so he's on a lot of medications. I can't remember the last day I haven't had him tell me about how the insurance company is jerking his chain today. Today it was because he purchased some medications using a discount program so they wouldn't be able to refund him his money even though they discredited his account that much money because it was purchased at a pharmacy they don't cover (was an emergency refill that the drug company associated with the insurance company approved and applied to his out-of-pocket expenses). So yea, I got ya lol

That being said, you took a sharp left from discussing Obamacare to ****ty health insurance companies whose job is literally to find a way to not help you.

This is actually untrue. Unpaid health care costs eventually become someone's else's problem and in the case of emergency room visits (not sure if that extends to anything else), the burden of payment already falls to the taxpayers.

The problem with this logic is that MAJOR problems are easily avoided by doing things like having routine visits, getting flu medication, ect. Having a questionable mole removed for $450 is much better for me and my pocketbook than getting chemotherapy for melanoma that costs me $20,000 by the end of things.

No, I would not be ok with that for a few reasons.
1. Firearms can be dangerous. A quick google search says that according to the CDC about 500 people die from accidental firearm injuries a year. I'm not sure how much of that, or if just all of it is in-home accidents (no idea how they categorize that stuff), but either way it's a risk that I could otherwise avoid without said law and/or suffering a monetary penalty for.
2. I get absolutely no benefit from this law and must suffer a penalty for failing to follow it.
3. You are literally putting weapons into the hands of criminals.

None of the above apply to the ACA. Health insurance isn't a danger to anyone and if you didn't have it before you benefit from having it. Do I think the ACA could use some changes and make it better? Of course. Most do. I think that's the thing that escapes so many opponents of the bill.

So based on that, if the tax payers are already paying to cover the ER visits why did the insurance need to be mandated?

Yes preventative care should be mandated as a precurser to getting the insurance. Similar to any other insurance company who assesses the item they are going to insure. Generally insurance companys want to see a used car, inspect a house, make you get a physical for life insurance etc etc, why shouldnt it be the same for health insurance.

For the Firearms:
1) lock up your gun and its not an issue.
2) defend your home from intruders? sounds like a pretty good benefit if a rapist is breaking in
3) don't worry it would be restricted to those who can legally buy guns (Background checks), the criminals already have them lol (sad but true)

ACA could be considered dangerous to your health, false sense of security going to a dr/hospital. Quick search gave this:

"In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.

Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, the study says."

So based on that, if the tax payers are already paying to cover the ER visits why did the insurance need to be mandated?

Yes preventative care should be mandated as a precurser to getting the insurance. Similar to any other insurance company who assesses the item they are going to insure. Generally insurance companys want to see a used car, inspect a house, make you get a physical for life insurance etc etc, why shouldnt it be the same for health insurance.

They have to mandate that people get insurance so they stop getting so desperately sick that they're forced to go to the emergency room and forcing people like yourself to pay their hospitals bills. Also, that generally is the case as far as "inspections" with health insurance goes (in my experience). People with poor health are either turned down or have to pay quite a bit more for health insurance since they'll be using it far more frequently.

For the Firearms:
1) lock up your gun and its not an issue.
2) defend your home from intruders? sounds like a pretty good benefit if a rapist is breaking in
3) don't worry it would be restricted to those who can legally buy guns (Background checks), the criminals already have them lol (sad but true)

1. You assume I live alone and would be the only one with access
2. I'm already perfectly happy with my ability to defend my home from intruders.
3. Do you want me to give you a list of the mass shooters who were legally able to buy a gun? Also, I meant potential criminals. People that would commit crimes given the right circumstances. Mandating that everyone has a gun is just cultivating those circumstances.

ACA could be considered dangerous to your health, false sense of security going to a dr/hospital. Quick search gave this:

"In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.

Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, the study says."

Ill take my chances with the 500 =)

I don't see any relation with having health insurance and suddenly thinking hospitals are safer than they actually are...unless I'm missing something.

A) That's not going to change at all. There is a vast majority who will still not go to the Dr, heck I'm one of them. I don't go until something is wrong. At that point the insurance at minimum covereage they need to come up with 40% which isnt feasible, so not only are we still paying for the hospital bills, but were also paying for the subsidy of the insurance plan.
As for people in poor health, shouldn't they be turned down for insurance? You don't wait til your house is on fire to call and get homeowners. If you have a poor driving record don't you pay more or get denied coverage?

B)
1) If you lock up your firearms properly that really isn't an issue? I don't live alone either, and my firearms are safely stored and locked up, unloaded, with the ammunition in another location.
2) Call the police and wait?
3) I'm pretty sure mass shootings would go down if everyone around them also had a gun to stop them...I am also pretty sure that you don't need a gun to commit mass killings and all of that can be obtained legally as well.

All I was saying in that scenario is that declaring everyone has the "right" to something is a slippery slope of what can happen. I went with choosing an extreme example, but the premise could be the same. If you would like we can switch to a more reasonable idea. How about everyone is required to go to college and the poorest will get that for free, or maybe everyone should have a car to get around so the government can mandate everyone to get a car or a pay a fee. Or the opposite, no one can have a car and you must use public transportation. Really opening up the door that the government can force you to purchase something or pay a tax is a pretty horrendous idea.